4 ms·

Yes, I'm surprised there is no "right to privacy" spelled out in clear terms. Sounds like that would be a wonderful thing to add directly to the Constitution.

• ipnon 6y ago
  The 4th amendment is supposed to guarantee this right. The Senators are old men who don't understand technology, so they believe that the protections that applied to letters at the time of the constitution don't apply to the medium that has replaced letters, namely email and messaging.
  • 54thr 6y ago
    Please... These people know exactly what they are doing. The internet is a lot of things, and one of those things is a tool for mass surveillance. It's always, always been about power and money.
    • ipnon 6y ago
      You are right, they have no excuse.
• jsjohnst 6y ago
  > I'm surprised there is no "right to privacy" spelled out in clear terms. The problem is, there is no definition of the word “privacy” in the context of “right to privacy” that a majority can agree on. I highly doubt even the niche audience of HN could agree on what they feel is private or not. I think the EU took a decent shortcut around that debate with “right to be forgotten”.
  • jsjohnst 6y ago
    Case in point, there’s a heated debate on HN today in the comments section of the DoJ post on Wikileaks whether Steve Job’s medical history (as shared by Wikileaks) should be private or not.